So far he has performed about as well as Rosberg did IMO and he's also only just joined the team, given some time to acclimatise I think he could be better than Rosberg was based on what I've seen so far.

I also agree Bottas hasn't done too bad, people have got to remember how long Rosberg had been at Mercedes before the domination. Also Bottas has joined the team when Ferrari have finally equaled them and I do enjoy the Ferrari/Vettel combo being aggressive on strategy and making Mercedes sweat.

How can race pace be compared between Rosberg and Bottas when Bottas would of most likely won last weekend in the last 3 years. That's the difference between another team fighting for the wins now.Also you didn't need to be the fastest Mercedes to win the race but the majority of the time leading at turn 1. It was a two car race. It's always a battle within a team and you know your get the best strategy as number 1 car. What would of made things interesting is if Rosberg was still at the team now and having two world champions.

I doubt even Rosberg would have won if he had Hamilton coming at him 2 seconds a lap quicker?

I don't get the idea that Bottas somehow has this awful race pace compared to Rosberg. We've had 3 races and he has matched Hamilton for pace in 1 of them.

1 out of 3 seems better than Rosberg's ratio to me.

Not sure in what race Bottas "matched" Hamilton.

I assume that you are talking about Australia. In that race Hamilton was driving away from Bottas at a rate of 0.6 seconds/lap in the first half of the race, then he was held up behind Verstappen for about 5 laps (who was likely going a second/lap slower than what Lewis was capable of). In the second stint, Bottas had fresher tyres and was able to close the gap to Lewis a bit, but never more than 2-3 seconds. Hamilton probably gave up after Vettel jumped him anyway.

If that counts as "matched" race pace, then Rosberg matched Hamilton more than 50% of the time.

In China, Bottas was really poor in the wet. Then again, Rosberg was hardly a rainmaster either, so I suppose I can forgive him for that.

In Bahrain he was shockingly slow. Rosberg was crucified on the rare occasions he was that much slower than Lewis in a normal dry race.

Completely agree. Hamilton also responded to Bottas' laps when he got the gap down to its lowest of 1.9 seconds Hamilton put in a lap that was quicker than any Bottas had done. If Verstappen had pitted, Hamilton would have won the race. If Bottas was quicker or even a match for Lewis in the first stint he would also have had a chance to win the race or at least jump Hamilton during the pit stops.

So far he has performed about as well as Rosberg did IMO and he's also only just joined the team, given some time to acclimatise I think he could be better than Rosberg was based on what I've seen so far.

I also agree Bottas hasn't done too bad, people have got to remember how long Rosberg had been at Mercedes before the domination. Also Bottas has joined the team when Ferrari have finally equaled them and I do enjoy the Ferrari/Vettel combo being aggressive on strategy and making Mercedes sweat.

How can race pace be compared between Rosberg and Bottas when Bottas would of most likely won last weekend in the last 3 years. That's the difference between another team fighting for the wins now.Also you didn't need to be the fastest Mercedes to win the race but the majority of the time leading at turn 1. It was a two car race. It's always a battle within a team and you know your get the best strategy as number 1 car. What would of made things interesting is if Rosberg was still at the team now and having two world champions.

The reason why Rosberg was mighty in his last year with Merc was due to their suspension tricks. It overall made the cars faster but the main effect it had was that Hamilton's cornering advantage was reduced. Basically it made the car easier to drive and as a result Rosberg was closer to Hamilton in pace. Bottas doesn't have that so it does look like there is a clear gap between Ham vs Bottas.

Does this suspension trick explain 2013 too?

Maybe, just maybe, Hamilton was never that much faster than Rosberg to begin with; just a thought.

It depends what you class as not much faster, a couple of tenths perhaps?

A similar thing used to happen with Rosber, though. He was always a better qualifier than racer

Rosberg lacked racecraft as much as anything, I would judge him stronger in race pace from what I've seen of Bottas thus far.

I'd agree Bottas looks slower in the race. But I also recall conversations before the hybrids where the accusation was that Rosberg would qualify well and then go backwards in the races, so there is a sense of deja vu here to a certain extent.

I think Bottas still has the potential to improve. He's still getting used to the Mercedes so the current situation may still change over the course of the year

Before the hybrids was 2013 and that was probably Rosberg's best year performance wise relative to Hamilton.

Doesn't change what I said

Well regarding what you actually said were is the proof for this, Rosberg has many good results to his name before the hybrids, good enough results to be offered a drive at McLaren in 2008 and of course a drive for Mercedes in 2010.

If you are making a comparison with Bottas he doesn't have a reputation for going backwards in the races either.

Not sure the comparison is apt. As mentioned previously, there was never any need to issue team orders at Mercedes these last three years, since they were virtually guaranteed both titles anyway. This is the first year with genuine competition.

I don't think that would have changed for Rosberg if he had stayed.

how do you know this? The situation would still be the same. Ferrari would be winning races and Mercedes would be facing a choice between supporting one driver or risk losing the title

But Rosberg is not Bottas, you are making a judgement that Rosberg would have performed at the same level as Bottas.

I'm not making any judgement on Rosberg. I'm saying the dilemma faced would be the same and I'd bet the house that people would be making the same demands and threads about the need for Mercedes to back one driver. As long as that driver was Hamilton, of course

You don't back one driver if the driver's are close in performance, again this hypothetical scenario were Hamilton is inferior to another driver.

So far he has performed about as well as Rosberg did IMO and he's also only just joined the team, given some time to acclimatise I think he could be better than Rosberg was based on what I've seen so far.

I also agree Bottas hasn't done too bad, people have got to remember how long Rosberg had been at Mercedes before the domination. Also Bottas has joined the team when Ferrari have finally equaled them and I do enjoy the Ferrari/Vettel combo being aggressive on strategy and making Mercedes sweat.

How can race pace be compared between Rosberg and Bottas when Bottas would of most likely won last weekend in the last 3 years. That's the difference between another team fighting for the wins now.Also you didn't need to be the fastest Mercedes to win the race but the majority of the time leading at turn 1. It was a two car race. It's always a battle within a team and you know your get the best strategy as number 1 car. What would of made things interesting is if Rosberg was still at the team now and having two world champions.

I doubt even Rosberg would have won if he had Hamilton coming at him 2 seconds a lap quicker?

Going by the last 3 years Mercedes wouldn't have split strategies due to Ferrari. Both drivers would have gone S-S and pitted around the same time so I'm guessing Hamilton wouldn't have had the 2 second advantage.

Given that Bahrain was possible to overtake on and how slow Bottas' was, Hamilton may have got him on that specific track. But the point is still valid, on half the tracks on the calander being 0.6-0.7 per lap quicker (on equal life tyres) isn't enough to get the overtake and Bottas would win many races over the 2014-2016. In fact any driver would take multiple wins off of Hamilton per season under the 2014-2016 rules of Mercedes racing - which was essentially a race to turn 1 especially in 2016, 8 wins were easy pickings against Hamilton due to 4 bad Hamilton starts from pole and 4 races with reliability issues.

Would Bottas (on current form) have been good enough to win the 2016 title given Nico's hand? I think he would have just fallen short. Probably at the last race or two Hamilton would get the lead back.

Fair enough but for me Bottas looks easily beatable for Hamilton thus far, I couldn't always say that of Rosberg.

Until last year, you pretty felt "Rosberg" was easily beatable by Lewis. After only three races on a new team, one would like to think that a 3x WDC with several years experience on that same team could beat a new driver on his team. Perhaps one should wait a few more races before condemning Bottas to eternally mediocre skills when compared to your man Hamilton. Perhaps even some races where he isn't told to move over and let Lewis pass.

I guess you didn't read the thus far bit?

Just because I felt Hamilton was better than Rosberg I'm not sure that came under the easily beatable category?

Your own team Ferrari have done far worse to drivers regarding team orders and I doubt you would be critical of them but now all the concerns for Bottas for some reason, a driver I feel you wouldn't necessarily be a fan of?

LMAO

I have always understood team orders and supported them, except when I didn't think they were the right decision at the moment, but I fully agree with the right of the team to exercise the orders. However, unlike yourself, I have not been a hypocrite on the topic, that is what is so damn funny. You see, I understand that Ferrari, like Mercedes is a team, and that the driver is merely a part of the team. The team must do what is best for the team as they see it, and it is their right. You, on the other hand, are driver oriented and often seemingly post as though the team's only purpose in existing is to serve Lewis... so your ideas on team orders seem to waiver as it best serves Hamilton... as we see now.

Fair enough but for me Bottas looks easily beatable for Hamilton thus far, I couldn't always say that of Rosberg.

Until last year, you pretty felt "Rosberg" was easily beatable by Lewis. After only three races on a new team, one would like to think that a 3x WDC with several years experience on that same team could beat a new driver on his team. Perhaps one should wait a few more races before condemning Bottas to eternally mediocre skills when compared to your man Hamilton. Perhaps even some races where he isn't told to move over and let Lewis pass.

I guess you didn't read the thus far bit?

Just because I felt Hamilton was better than Rosberg I'm not sure that came under the easily beatable category?

Your own team Ferrari have done far worse to drivers regarding team orders and I doubt you would be critical of them but now all the concerns for Bottas for some reason, a driver I feel you wouldn't necessarily be a fan of?

LMAO

I have always understood team orders and supported them, except when I didn't think they were the right decision at the moment, but I fully agree with the right of the team to exercise the orders. However, unlike yourself, I have not been a hypocrite on the topic, that is what is so damn funny. You see, I understand that Ferrari, like Mercedes is a team, and that the driver is merely a part of the team. The team must do what is best for the team as they see it, and it is their right. You, on the other hand, are driver oriented and often seemingly post as though the team's only purpose in existing is to serve Lewis... so your ideas on team orders seem to waiver as it best serves Hamilton... as we see now.

Waver in what way, this is about one driver being slower throughout the race and being moved out of the way, when has Hamilton been slower throughout a race and needed moving out of the way?

I never had a problem with what happened in 2010 so I am consistent on that score, so you doubt me because of my bias as opposed to being against the decision that Mercedes eventually made?

when has Hamilton been slower throughout a race and needed moving out of the way?

Im going to guess that Hungary 2014 doesn't count as Hamilton was only slower due to circumstances?

That race highlights, along with Austria 2016 just how awful Mercedes strategy is.

Mercedes put Hamilton on a strategy that relies on holding track position but being slower (2 stop vs 3 stop) and then asked him to move over to give his team mate a better chance of beating him at the end. The 3 stop was the better strategy as evidenced by Ricciardo. This was at a point in the season when it was a 2 horse race for the title and they were 202-191 in the points. They out did themselves in Austria though, the one Mercedes strategy guy managed to race himself with either car and lose the leader Hamilton the race and a 16 second lead, fortunately for Hamilton he got it back somehow.

Mercedes have lost every race strategy has come into - Hungary 14, Malaysia 15, Australia 16 and Bahrain 16. If they lose the titles this year it will likely be on the pit wall.

Similarly, asking Rosberg to move over in Monaco 2016 in a two horse title race is harsh by Mercedes but I think justified judging by the fact that Hamilton was unbelievably 4.8 seconds ahead of Rosberg 1 lap after he let him by and catching Ricciardo at over 0.5 per lap and of course he won the race. Also Rosberg was not on a different strategy that dictated his pace at that point.

how do you know this? The situation would still be the same. Ferrari would be winning races and Mercedes would be facing a choice between supporting one driver or risk losing the title

But Rosberg is not Bottas, you are making a judgement that Rosberg would have performed at the same level as Bottas.

I'm not making any judgement on Rosberg. I'm saying the dilemma faced would be the same and I'd bet the house that people would be making the same demands and threads about the need for Mercedes to back one driver. As long as that driver was Hamilton, of course

You don't back one driver if the driver's are close in performance, again this hypothetical scenario were Hamilton is inferior to another driver.

Rosberg lacked racecraft as much as anything, I would judge him stronger in race pace from what I've seen of Bottas thus far.

I'd agree Bottas looks slower in the race. But I also recall conversations before the hybrids where the accusation was that Rosberg would qualify well and then go backwards in the races, so there is a sense of deja vu here to a certain extent.

I think Bottas still has the potential to improve. He's still getting used to the Mercedes so the current situation may still change over the course of the year

Before the hybrids was 2013 and that was probably Rosberg's best year performance wise relative to Hamilton.

Doesn't change what I said

Well regarding what you actually said were is the proof for this, Rosberg has many good results to his name before the hybrids, good enough results to be offered a drive at McLaren in 2008 and of course a drive for Mercedes in 2010.

If you are making a comparison with Bottas he doesn't have a reputation for going backwards in the races either.

I don't need proof to remember a number of conversations about Rosberg being somewhat anonymous in races and often going backwards from his starting position. The point being that he seemed to qualify much stronger than he raced, which is similar to what Bottas appears to be doing now

So what happens then, if by whatever means, Bottas is still pretty close in the championship or even leading, and he is in front on the track but second (perhaps to Max who is not in the WDC race)... if Hamilton is faster but behind, is it reasonable to ask Bottas to move over? And what if the positions are reversed?

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

So what happens then, if by whatever means, Bottas is still pretty close in the championship or even leading, and he is in front on the track but second (perhaps to Max who is not in the WDC race)... if Hamilton is faster but behind, is it reasonable to ask Bottas to move over? And what if the positions are reversed?

The same any team has ever has done in such scenario's... based it on current WDC table vs potential in further races... No team has ever favoured a driver who possibly had a weaker hand, with the exception of Vettel in 2010 with 3-4 races to go but Vettel had the higher potential in future races then (that was realised) so maybe that isn't even true.

So what happens then, if by whatever means, Bottas is still pretty close in the championship or even leading, and he is in front on the track but second (perhaps to Max who is not in the WDC race)... if Hamilton is faster but behind, is it reasonable to ask Bottas to move over? And what if the positions are reversed?

I believe they should give the faster driver an opportunity to challenge for the win, regardless of wdc standings. Team orders to swap places would be the right thing to do in that scenario. Many believe hamilton would never comply with such an order though. We shall see if it ever comes to fruition.

when has Hamilton been slower throughout a race and needed moving out of the way?

Im going to guess that Hungary 2014 doesn't count as Hamilton was only slower due to circumstances?

That race highlights, along with Austria 2016 just how awful Mercedes strategy is.

Mercedes put Hamilton on a strategy that relies on holding track position but being slower (2 stop vs 3 stop) and then asked him to move over to give his team mate a better chance of beating him at the end. The 3 stop was the better strategy as evidenced by Ricciardo. This was at a point in the season when it was a 2 horse race for the title and they were 202-191 in the points. They out did themselves in Austria though, the one Mercedes strategy guy managed to race himself with either car and lose the leader Hamilton the race and a 16 second lead, fortunately for Hamilton he got it back somehow.

Mercedes have lost every race strategy has come into - Hungary 14, Malaysia 15, Australia 16 and Bahrain 16. If they lose the titles this year it will likely be on the pit wall.

Similarly, asking Rosberg to move over in Monaco 2016 in a two horse title race is harsh by Mercedes but I think justified judging by the fact that Hamilton was unbelievably 4.8 seconds ahead of Rosberg 1 lap after he let him by and catching Ricciardo at over 0.5 per lap and of course he won the race. Also Rosberg was not on a different strategy that dictated his pace at that point.

Austria was unbelievable and Mercedes to this day don't realise how much they screwed Hamilton.

how do you know this? The situation would still be the same. Ferrari would be winning races and Mercedes would be facing a choice between supporting one driver or risk losing the title

But Rosberg is not Bottas, you are making a judgement that Rosberg would have performed at the same level as Bottas.

I'm not making any judgement on Rosberg. I'm saying the dilemma faced would be the same and I'd bet the house that people would be making the same demands and threads about the need for Mercedes to back one driver. As long as that driver was Hamilton, of course

You don't back one driver if the driver's are close in performance, again this hypothetical scenario were Hamilton is inferior to another driver.

what hypothetical scenario?

This scenario that demands would be made to back one driver so long as that driver was Hamilton, inferring that if Hamilton was the weaker driver then such views would be different.

I'd agree Bottas looks slower in the race. But I also recall conversations before the hybrids where the accusation was that Rosberg would qualify well and then go backwards in the races, so there is a sense of deja vu here to a certain extent.

I think Bottas still has the potential to improve. He's still getting used to the Mercedes so the current situation may still change over the course of the year

Before the hybrids was 2013 and that was probably Rosberg's best year performance wise relative to Hamilton.

Doesn't change what I said

Well regarding what you actually said were is the proof for this, Rosberg has many good results to his name before the hybrids, good enough results to be offered a drive at McLaren in 2008 and of course a drive for Mercedes in 2010.

If you are making a comparison with Bottas he doesn't have a reputation for going backwards in the races either.

I don't need proof to remember a number of conversations about Rosberg being somewhat anonymous in races and often going backwards from his starting position. The point being that he seemed to qualify much stronger than he raced, which is similar to what Bottas appears to be doing now

Well you've got me with that one, you don't attract top teams if you are a bit of a woolly racer, this weak racer was still outscoring his teammates.

So what happens then, if by whatever means, Bottas is still pretty close in the championship or even leading, and he is in front on the track but second (perhaps to Max who is not in the WDC race)... if Hamilton is faster but behind, is it reasonable to ask Bottas to move over? And what if the positions are reversed?

If Bottas is leading the championship?

For that to occur means that Bottas has been beating both Hamilton and Vettel and I wouldn't see team orders coming into play.

So the scenario now is that the 2 drivers that have been dominating the races are now getting beat by Bottas and Verstappen, any more unlikely scenarios that need playing out?

But Rosberg is not Bottas, you are making a judgement that Rosberg would have performed at the same level as Bottas.

I'm not making any judgement on Rosberg. I'm saying the dilemma faced would be the same and I'd bet the house that people would be making the same demands and threads about the need for Mercedes to back one driver. As long as that driver was Hamilton, of course

You don't back one driver if the driver's are close in performance, again this hypothetical scenario were Hamilton is inferior to another driver.

what hypothetical scenario?

This scenario that demands would be made to back one driver so long as that driver was Hamilton, inferring that if Hamilton was the weaker driver then such views would be different.

I strongly believe such views would be different. How many voices are we hearing clamouring for Ferrari to formally focus all of their efforts behind Vettel? I don't remember a single one, yet they are in a pretty much identical position to Mercedes, with one driver being clearly quicker than the other. But it's all about how Mercedes must act to give privilege to Hamilton in order for him to stand a chance against Vettel. So there's already evidence we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Hamilton wasn't involved. It's all panic on Hamilton's behalf

I also seem to recall some voices - yours strongly among them - deriding the likes of Alonso for getting preferred treatment and holding Hamilton up as someone who actively discouraged such a practice (conveniently forgetting, of course, about 2008/9). Where are those voices now among the calls for him to be made No1?

Before the hybrids was 2013 and that was probably Rosberg's best year performance wise relative to Hamilton.

Doesn't change what I said

Well regarding what you actually said were is the proof for this, Rosberg has many good results to his name before the hybrids, good enough results to be offered a drive at McLaren in 2008 and of course a drive for Mercedes in 2010.

If you are making a comparison with Bottas he doesn't have a reputation for going backwards in the races either.

I don't need proof to remember a number of conversations about Rosberg being somewhat anonymous in races and often going backwards from his starting position. The point being that he seemed to qualify much stronger than he raced, which is similar to what Bottas appears to be doing now

Well you've got me with that one, you don't attract top teams if you are a bit of a woolly racer, this weak racer was still outscoring his teammates.

I'm not making any judgement on Rosberg. I'm saying the dilemma faced would be the same and I'd bet the house that people would be making the same demands and threads about the need for Mercedes to back one driver. As long as that driver was Hamilton, of course

You don't back one driver if the driver's are close in performance, again this hypothetical scenario were Hamilton is inferior to another driver.

what hypothetical scenario?

This scenario that demands would be made to back one driver so long as that driver was Hamilton, inferring that if Hamilton was the weaker driver then such views would be different.

I strongly believe such views would be different. How many voices are we hearing clamouring for Ferrari to formally focus all of their efforts behind Vettel? I don't remember a single one, yet they are in a pretty much identical position to Mercedes, with one driver being clearly quicker than the other. But it's all about how Mercedes must act to give privilege to Hamilton in order for him to stand a chance against Vettel. So there's already evidence we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Hamilton wasn't involved. It's all panic on Hamilton's behalf

I also seem to recall some voices - yours strongly among them - deriding the likes of Alonso for getting preferred treatment and holding Hamilton up as someone who actively discouraged such a practice (conveniently forgetting, of course, about 2008/9). Where are those voices now among the calls for him to be made No1?

Maybe the voices are not clamoring at Ferrari because they don't need to?

Last year team orders were issued against Kimi on more than one occasion to let the faster Vettel by and not a murmur of discontent on here, Mercedes do it and all we have to hear is talk of the preferential treatment towards Hamilton.

Ferrari did this with no hesitation whatsoever, Mercedes couldn't make the decision before it was too late and this is the pretext of what Mercedes did wrong if they wanted to win the race.

The Alonso situation is of a driver who wants preferential treatment to be pre-ordained, this being different from a driver earning that status and in this case with Hamilton and Bottas it's really just a race by race situation at the moment.

I wouldn't be a fan of Kimi and I don't care what treatment he gets at Ferrari because he's the inferior driver, who sees Kimi as a WDC title contender?

Yet with Bottas we have all this concern for him, for how he gets treated and this from some who don't really rate him, the fact he's been the slower driver thus far and has only 4 points more than Kimi somehow doesn't make him the same as Kimi in how we view how drivers should be treated?

Well regarding what you actually said were is the proof for this, Rosberg has many good results to his name before the hybrids, good enough results to be offered a drive at McLaren in 2008 and of course a drive for Mercedes in 2010.

If you are making a comparison with Bottas he doesn't have a reputation for going backwards in the races either.

I don't need proof to remember a number of conversations about Rosberg being somewhat anonymous in races and often going backwards from his starting position. The point being that he seemed to qualify much stronger than he raced, which is similar to what Bottas appears to be doing now

Well you've got me with that one, you don't attract top teams if you are a bit of a woolly racer, this weak racer was still outscoring his teammates.

Not sure how this is relevant in the comparison with Bottas?

I'm not sure what relevance there is anyway to your claims that Rosberg was a driver with a reputation of going backwards in the race, it feels like you must be just be picking out one particular year for this because I believe there is no body of evidence to support what you are saying.

Well regarding what you actually said were is the proof for this, Rosberg has many good results to his name before the hybrids, good enough results to be offered a drive at McLaren in 2008 and of course a drive for Mercedes in 2010.

If you are making a comparison with Bottas he doesn't have a reputation for going backwards in the races either.

I don't need proof to remember a number of conversations about Rosberg being somewhat anonymous in races and often going backwards from his starting position. The point being that he seemed to qualify much stronger than he raced, which is similar to what Bottas appears to be doing now

Well you've got me with that one, you don't attract top teams if you are a bit of a woolly racer, this weak racer was still outscoring his teammates.

Not sure how this is relevant in the comparison with Bottas?

I'm not sure what relevance there is anyway to your claims that Rosberg was a driver with a reputation of going backwards in the race, it feels like you must be just be picking out one particular year for this because I believe there is no body of evidence to support what you are saying.

You were involved in the discussions, so perhaps your memory is fading?

The original point was that maybe Bottas is a better qualifier than racer. Rosberg was simply used for comparison, nothing more. But you appear determined to focus on the minor detail at the expense of the broader picture?

You don't back one driver if the driver's are close in performance, again this hypothetical scenario were Hamilton is inferior to another driver.

what hypothetical scenario?

This scenario that demands would be made to back one driver so long as that driver was Hamilton, inferring that if Hamilton was the weaker driver then such views would be different.

I strongly believe such views would be different. How many voices are we hearing clamouring for Ferrari to formally focus all of their efforts behind Vettel? I don't remember a single one, yet they are in a pretty much identical position to Mercedes, with one driver being clearly quicker than the other. But it's all about how Mercedes must act to give privilege to Hamilton in order for him to stand a chance against Vettel. So there's already evidence we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Hamilton wasn't involved. It's all panic on Hamilton's behalf

I also seem to recall some voices - yours strongly among them - deriding the likes of Alonso for getting preferred treatment and holding Hamilton up as someone who actively discouraged such a practice (conveniently forgetting, of course, about 2008/9). Where are those voices now among the calls for him to be made No1?

Maybe the voices are not clamoring at Ferrari because they don't need to?

Last year team orders were issued against Kimi on more than one occasion to let the faster Vettel by and not a murmur of discontent on here, Mercedes do it and all we have to hear is talk of the preferential treatment towards Hamilton.

Ferrari did this with no hesitation whatsoever, Mercedes couldn't make the decision before it was too late and this is the pretext of what Mercedes did wrong if they wanted to win the race.

The Alonso situation is of a driver who wants preferential treatment to be pre-ordained, this being different from a driver earning that status and in this case with Hamilton and Bottas it's really just a race by race situation at the moment.

I wouldn't be a fan of Kimi and I don't care what treatment he gets at Ferrari because he's the inferior driver, who sees Kimi as a WDC title contender?

Yet with Bottas we have all this concern for him, for how he gets treated and this from some who don't really rate him, the fact he's been the slower driver thus far and has only 4 points more than Kimi somehow doesn't make him the same as Kimi in how we view how drivers should be treated?

Actually, the loudest voices are those demanding he gets preferential treatment, not complaining if he does. Let's not shift the focus here. There are numerous calls both in the press and within this forum demanding Mercedes make him formal No1, but none demanding the same for Vettel, interestingly enough (although you'd have to ask if he hasn't earned it by now, what exactly are the criteria? To have the initials L.H?). Bit of panic happening at the moment, it seems?

So what happens then, if by whatever means, Bottas is still pretty close in the championship or even leading, and he is in front on the track but second (perhaps to Max who is not in the WDC race)... if Hamilton is faster but behind, is it reasonable to ask Bottas to move over? And what if the positions are reversed?

If Bottas is leading the championship?

For that to occur means that Bottas has been beating both Hamilton and Vettel and I wouldn't see team orders coming into play.

So the scenario now is that the 2 drivers that have been dominating the races are now getting beat by Bottas and Verstappen, any more unlikely scenarios that need playing out?

If I think of any I'll let you know. It could be mechanical failures/crashes which lead to this scenario, however unlikely. It wasn't that long ago we had nine winners in nine races or somesuch, things can sometimes happen.... granted often they don't, F1 can be as predictable as a predictable thing a lot of the time...

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

I strongly believe such views would be different. How many voices are we hearing clamouring for Ferrari to formally focus all of their efforts behind Vettel? I don't remember a single one, yet they are in a pretty much identical position to Mercedes, with one driver being clearly quicker than the other. But it's all about how Mercedes must act to give privilege to Hamilton in order for him to stand a chance against Vettel. So there's already evidence we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Hamilton wasn't involved. It's all panic on Hamilton's behalf

I also seem to recall some voices - yours strongly among them - deriding the likes of Alonso for getting preferred treatment and holding Hamilton up as someone who actively discouraged such a practice (conveniently forgetting, of course, about 2008/9). Where are those voices now among the calls for him to be made No1?

Maybe the voices are not clamoring at Ferrari because they don't need to?

Last year team orders were issued against Kimi on more than one occasion to let the faster Vettel by and not a murmur of discontent on here, Mercedes do it and all we have to hear is talk of the preferential treatment towards Hamilton.

Ferrari did this with no hesitation whatsoever, Mercedes couldn't make the decision before it was too late and this is the pretext of what Mercedes did wrong if they wanted to win the race.

The Alonso situation is of a driver who wants preferential treatment to be pre-ordained, this being different from a driver earning that status and in this case with Hamilton and Bottas it's really just a race by race situation at the moment.

I wouldn't be a fan of Kimi and I don't care what treatment he gets at Ferrari because he's the inferior driver, who sees Kimi as a WDC title contender?

Yet with Bottas we have all this concern for him, for how he gets treated and this from some who don't really rate him, the fact he's been the slower driver thus far and has only 4 points more than Kimi somehow doesn't make him the same as Kimi in how we view how drivers should be treated?

Merc couldn't make the decision until it was "too late"? So, are you saying that Merc should have made the decision to back Rosberg last year as he was the leading driver? That would have gone over like a ton of bricks in here. Of course, you would have supported such a decision, right? The crazy thing is that Merc didn't use team orders last year, because they didn't have to, the only threat to either driver was the other driver. So, as I remember it, Merc followed the same policy that they had all year in that last race, did they not? And did they not reiterate that policy prior to the race start? They played fair, and now Niki Rosberg is the reigning WDC... and now, we have threads such as this. Must have been a tough off-season for some.

The reason why there is "talk of preferential treatment of Hamilton" is because the thread is titled "Mercedes must back Hamilton, now" And many of Hamilton's fans have come out in support of the idea, even though we are only three races into the season.

Why does Bottas "have all this concern for him"? Maybe because he is a new driver on the team, the one without several years experience with the personnel, policies and procedures. Maybe it is because after only 3 races on this new team, we are seeing people demanding that he be relegated to #2 status so that Lewis can be their primary weapon against Ferrari. Why are you so afraid of Bottas that you feel the need for Merc to protect Lewis against him if he is as poor as you are suggesting? You say Ferrari doesn't have to do the same with Kimi because he is so slow, then you point out that there is only 4 points different between Bottas and Kimi. You appear to have little respect for either of them, so why the feeling that Bottas needs to be put in #2 in order to help Lewis?

I don't need proof to remember a number of conversations about Rosberg being somewhat anonymous in races and often going backwards from his starting position. The point being that he seemed to qualify much stronger than he raced, which is similar to what Bottas appears to be doing now

Well you've got me with that one, you don't attract top teams if you are a bit of a woolly racer, this weak racer was still outscoring his teammates.

Not sure how this is relevant in the comparison with Bottas?

I'm not sure what relevance there is anyway to your claims that Rosberg was a driver with a reputation of going backwards in the race, it feels like you must be just be picking out one particular year for this because I believe there is no body of evidence to support what you are saying.

You were involved in the discussions, so perhaps your memory is fading?

The original point was that maybe Bottas is a better qualifier than racer. Rosberg was simply used for comparison, nothing more. But you appear determined to focus on the minor detail at the expense of the broader picture?

It seems you need to read exactly what was said, I did contribute and disagreed, note also the post that said that Hamilton went backwards in the races more times than Rosberg in 2013 and how much it was car related.

This scenario that demands would be made to back one driver so long as that driver was Hamilton, inferring that if Hamilton was the weaker driver then such views would be different.

I strongly believe such views would be different. How many voices are we hearing clamouring for Ferrari to formally focus all of their efforts behind Vettel? I don't remember a single one, yet they are in a pretty much identical position to Mercedes, with one driver being clearly quicker than the other. But it's all about how Mercedes must act to give privilege to Hamilton in order for him to stand a chance against Vettel. So there's already evidence we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Hamilton wasn't involved. It's all panic on Hamilton's behalf

I also seem to recall some voices - yours strongly among them - deriding the likes of Alonso for getting preferred treatment and holding Hamilton up as someone who actively discouraged such a practice (conveniently forgetting, of course, about 2008/9). Where are those voices now among the calls for him to be made No1?

Maybe the voices are not clamoring at Ferrari because they don't need to?

Last year team orders were issued against Kimi on more than one occasion to let the faster Vettel by and not a murmur of discontent on here, Mercedes do it and all we have to hear is talk of the preferential treatment towards Hamilton.

Ferrari did this with no hesitation whatsoever, Mercedes couldn't make the decision before it was too late and this is the pretext of what Mercedes did wrong if they wanted to win the race.

The Alonso situation is of a driver who wants preferential treatment to be pre-ordained, this being different from a driver earning that status and in this case with Hamilton and Bottas it's really just a race by race situation at the moment.

I wouldn't be a fan of Kimi and I don't care what treatment he gets at Ferrari because he's the inferior driver, who sees Kimi as a WDC title contender?

Yet with Bottas we have all this concern for him, for how he gets treated and this from some who don't really rate him, the fact he's been the slower driver thus far and has only 4 points more than Kimi somehow doesn't make him the same as Kimi in how we view how drivers should be treated?

Actually, the loudest voices are those demanding he gets preferential treatment, not complaining if he does. Let's not shift the focus here. There are numerous calls both in the press and within this forum demanding Mercedes make him formal No1, but none demanding the same for Vettel, interestingly enough (although you'd have to ask if he hasn't earned it by now, what exactly are the criteria? To have the initials L.H?). Bit of panic happening at the moment, it seems?

The people that are demanding it are only doing so because they believe Vettel is already the #1 driver at Ferrari, you need to read the reasoning as well which also explains why no one is demanding the same for Vettel.

So what happens then, if by whatever means, Bottas is still pretty close in the championship or even leading, and he is in front on the track but second (perhaps to Max who is not in the WDC race)... if Hamilton is faster but behind, is it reasonable to ask Bottas to move over? And what if the positions are reversed?

If Bottas is leading the championship?

For that to occur means that Bottas has been beating both Hamilton and Vettel and I wouldn't see team orders coming into play.

So the scenario now is that the 2 drivers that have been dominating the races are now getting beat by Bottas and Verstappen, any more unlikely scenarios that need playing out?

If I think of any I'll let you know. It could be mechanical failures/crashes which lead to this scenario, however unlikely. It wasn't that long ago we had nine winners in nine races or somesuch, things can sometimes happen.... granted often they don't, F1 can be as predictable as a predictable thing a lot of the time...

Sorry I wasn't really being serious, I can only deal with what actually happens and not hypothesize about what might happen given a myriad of different circumstances.

I strongly believe such views would be different. How many voices are we hearing clamouring for Ferrari to formally focus all of their efforts behind Vettel? I don't remember a single one, yet they are in a pretty much identical position to Mercedes, with one driver being clearly quicker than the other. But it's all about how Mercedes must act to give privilege to Hamilton in order for him to stand a chance against Vettel. So there's already evidence we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Hamilton wasn't involved. It's all panic on Hamilton's behalf

I also seem to recall some voices - yours strongly among them - deriding the likes of Alonso for getting preferred treatment and holding Hamilton up as someone who actively discouraged such a practice (conveniently forgetting, of course, about 2008/9). Where are those voices now among the calls for him to be made No1?

Maybe the voices are not clamoring at Ferrari because they don't need to?

Last year team orders were issued against Kimi on more than one occasion to let the faster Vettel by and not a murmur of discontent on here, Mercedes do it and all we have to hear is talk of the preferential treatment towards Hamilton.

Ferrari did this with no hesitation whatsoever, Mercedes couldn't make the decision before it was too late and this is the pretext of what Mercedes did wrong if they wanted to win the race.

The Alonso situation is of a driver who wants preferential treatment to be pre-ordained, this being different from a driver earning that status and in this case with Hamilton and Bottas it's really just a race by race situation at the moment.

I wouldn't be a fan of Kimi and I don't care what treatment he gets at Ferrari because he's the inferior driver, who sees Kimi as a WDC title contender?

Yet with Bottas we have all this concern for him, for how he gets treated and this from some who don't really rate him, the fact he's been the slower driver thus far and has only 4 points more than Kimi somehow doesn't make him the same as Kimi in how we view how drivers should be treated?

Merc couldn't make the decision until it was "too late"? So, are you saying that Merc should have made the decision to back Rosberg last year as he was the leading driver? That would have gone over like a ton of bricks in here. Of course, you would have supported such a decision, right? The crazy thing is that Merc didn't use team orders last year, because they didn't have to, the only threat to either driver was the other driver. So, as I remember it, Merc followed the same policy that they had all year in that last race, did they not? And did they not reiterate that policy prior to the race start? They played fair, and now Niki Rosberg is the reigning WDC... and now, we have threads such as this. Must have been a tough off-season for some.

The reason why there is "talk of preferential treatment of Hamilton" is because the thread is titled "Mercedes must back Hamilton, now" And many of Hamilton's fans have come out in support of the idea, even though we are only three races into the season.

Why does Bottas "have all this concern for him"? Maybe because he is a new driver on the team, the one without several years experience with the personnel, policies and procedures. Maybe it is because after only 3 races on this new team, we are seeing people demanding that he be relegated to #2 status so that Lewis can be their primary weapon against Ferrari. Why are you so afraid of Bottas that you feel the need for Merc to protect Lewis against him if he is as poor as you are suggesting? You say Ferrari doesn't have to do the same with Kimi because he is so slow, then you point out that there is only 4 points different between Bottas and Kimi. You appear to have little respect for either of them, so why the feeling that Bottas needs to be put in #2 in order to help Lewis?

They made the decision to late if they wanted to win the race.

Why still with the comparisons with last season when the landscape is completely different this season?

Many Hamilton fans, I need to have a look through because surprising enough you don't always have to be a Hamilton fan to say such a thing but then will get automatically labelled one it seems?

My opinion is based on what happened in the last race and relative performance thus far, this is not being afraid of Bottas but how Mercedes operates the team which I think was a bit of a shambles last time out, even Wolff has said that some adjustments need to be made.

You are addressing me with this #2 driver request but I see every race as being different and in the situation we have now the slower driver can't be holding up the faster driver, team orders were being issued against Kimi last year and Ferrari were not even in contention for the titles so I think most people see his situation for what it is.

This is a simple fact of life that if you can't step up to the plate then you will get left behind, you as a Ferrari fan should know this, Ferrari have a long list of #2 drivers.

Well you've got me with that one, you don't attract top teams if you are a bit of a woolly racer, this weak racer was still outscoring his teammates.

Not sure how this is relevant in the comparison with Bottas?

I'm not sure what relevance there is anyway to your claims that Rosberg was a driver with a reputation of going backwards in the race, it feels like you must be just be picking out one particular year for this because I believe there is no body of evidence to support what you are saying.

You were involved in the discussions, so perhaps your memory is fading?

The original point was that maybe Bottas is a better qualifier than racer. Rosberg was simply used for comparison, nothing more. But you appear determined to focus on the minor detail at the expense of the broader picture?

It seems you need to read exactly what was said, I did contribute and disagreed, note also the post that said that Hamilton went backwards in the races more times than Rosberg in 2013 and how much it was car related.

You're being disingenuous here. The thread I referred to contains statistical evidence that Rosberg often went backwards in races before the hybrid era. I said you were involved, not that you agreed with the conclusions, but it draws attention to the fact that you know you are spouting rubbish when you claim there is no evidence. It's been presented to you before

This scenario that demands would be made to back one driver so long as that driver was Hamilton, inferring that if Hamilton was the weaker driver then such views would be different.

I strongly believe such views would be different. How many voices are we hearing clamouring for Ferrari to formally focus all of their efforts behind Vettel? I don't remember a single one, yet they are in a pretty much identical position to Mercedes, with one driver being clearly quicker than the other. But it's all about how Mercedes must act to give privilege to Hamilton in order for him to stand a chance against Vettel. So there's already evidence we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Hamilton wasn't involved. It's all panic on Hamilton's behalf

I also seem to recall some voices - yours strongly among them - deriding the likes of Alonso for getting preferred treatment and holding Hamilton up as someone who actively discouraged such a practice (conveniently forgetting, of course, about 2008/9). Where are those voices now among the calls for him to be made No1?

Maybe the voices are not clamoring at Ferrari because they don't need to?

Last year team orders were issued against Kimi on more than one occasion to let the faster Vettel by and not a murmur of discontent on here, Mercedes do it and all we have to hear is talk of the preferential treatment towards Hamilton.

Ferrari did this with no hesitation whatsoever, Mercedes couldn't make the decision before it was too late and this is the pretext of what Mercedes did wrong if they wanted to win the race.

The Alonso situation is of a driver who wants preferential treatment to be pre-ordained, this being different from a driver earning that status and in this case with Hamilton and Bottas it's really just a race by race situation at the moment.

I wouldn't be a fan of Kimi and I don't care what treatment he gets at Ferrari because he's the inferior driver, who sees Kimi as a WDC title contender?

Yet with Bottas we have all this concern for him, for how he gets treated and this from some who don't really rate him, the fact he's been the slower driver thus far and has only 4 points more than Kimi somehow doesn't make him the same as Kimi in how we view how drivers should be treated?

Actually, the loudest voices are those demanding he gets preferential treatment, not complaining if he does. Let's not shift the focus here. There are numerous calls both in the press and within this forum demanding Mercedes make him formal No1, but none demanding the same for Vettel, interestingly enough (although you'd have to ask if he hasn't earned it by now, what exactly are the criteria? To have the initials L.H?). Bit of panic happening at the moment, it seems?

The people that are demanding it are only doing so because they believe Vettel is already the #1 driver at Ferrari, you need to read the reasoning as well which also explains why no one is demanding the same for Vettel.

And many also believe Hamilton is. The calls from both press and public is to make that formal, where no such calls exist for Vettel. Vettel was also held up by Kimi in China, yet where is the panic there?